6 ms·

Reacting to things is still important and time critical. You just can't react to anything in sight. Instead the things you can react to are data and camera feed

by gnode 7y ago

Reacting to things is still important and time critical. You just can't react to anything in sight. Instead the things you can react to are data and camera feeds from far up ahead. What are the other trains doing? Did the next junction switch successfully? I think that raises a question of: what is the point of having a driver on the train? Why not have people in a control room drive the trains, coordinating the system as a whole? Arguably this is already the case, with some trains automatically stopping in cases of signal violation. Maybe the reason is simply that passengers would rather trust a driver whose life is invested along with theirs.

SiempreViernes 7y ago
The point is mainly to have someone trained there when something goes wrong, like a signal switch breaking down or you hitting something on the tracks. Since they have to be there anyway they might as well monitor the train.
Symbiote 7y ago
> What are the other trains doing? Did the next junction switch successfully? These are not things the train driver would react to. There will be a signal protecting the switch, which won't be "green" until the change is successful. If the driver tries to pass a red signal (or exceed the speed limit), the emergency brake is applied automatically. The driver needs to react to unexpected events -- which might mean applying the emergency brake on their own train and maybe pressing the emergency button to stop all trains in the area. Possibilities: - their own train has a serious mechanical failure - something falls of their train, like a container or (somehow) a passenger - the track has a serious failure (flooding, damaged rail, nearby fire) - foreign objects are on the track (cars, trees, people) Other trains will react automatically as necessary. The driver is then there to deal with the situation, which might include proceeding at slow speed, reversing, or waiting for assistance while keeping passengers informed. > some trains automatically stopping in cases of signal violation. On high-speed trains like this, all of these safety systems you've heard about are standard, and most of them are considered critical for normal operation. > what is the point of having a driver on the train? A better question is why does the driver actually drive the train? (Why do they control the speed?) I think that's to help maintain situational awareness in case there is a problem they can react to.
- gnode 7y ago
  I don't think any of these things are reasons to have the driver on the train. The train drivers could be located at a remote location and still be aware of these things. Loss of connectivity already means it's unsafe for the train to continue and must stop, as it cannot be aware of signals or hazards ahead. As far as foreign objects or track failures go, these are not promptly apparent from the cabin anyway. CCTV on the track and crossings ahead is better placed for early warning. Additionally, remote control of trains could potentially be more safe, as it would be easier for a new driver to take over in the event of e.g. the driver having a heart attack or stroke. I think the only remaining reason is the physical accountability of being on the train.
  - _nosaj 7y ago
    > CCTV on the track and crossings ahead is better placed for early warning. That's a lot of CCTV to replace one human.
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      CCTVs are cheap and have other benefits for being there.
dmitriid 7y ago
Remote control systems can and will fail.
- Symbiote 7y ago
  I don't know what's considered a safe speed for moving a train without working safety systems on a European high-speed railway, but it's almost certainly so slow (20-40km/h) that the system is designed such that failure of the control system is extremely rare. Should it fail, the priority will be to restore it, rather than move trains around very slowly.
  - dmitriid 7y ago
    On-train systems will stop the train in case of failure. I was responding to “Why not have people in a control room drive the trains, coordinating the system as a whole”. Infrastructure and timetables are centrally coordinated (or actoss several centers). Controlling a train remotely introduces multiple points of failure: - connection lag - connection quality - remote operators don’t have the full details on a train (unless you have one operator per train) Remote/automatic control works in smaller systems (such as subways, see e.g. Copenhagen), but the speeds there are usually smaller, the “fleet” is smaller, you can reach the trains in case of failure faster etc.
- gnode 7y ago
  I don't see why this is an issue. If it fails, the train should stop. The train should be designed such that it only continues on its way if a continuous "okay to proceed" signal is received, gated on automatic safety systems and deliberate human action. Even if you have a driver, the train should still stop if it cannot communicate, because the driver can't determine whether the track ahead is safe.
  - dmitriid 7y ago
    Railroads were developed in a time when “continuous communication” wasn’t even a fiction, much less reality. I don’t know what continuous monitoring/communication brings other than numerous new failure modes.

by gnode 7y ago

SiempreViernes 7y ago

The point is mainly to have someone trained there when something goes wrong, like a signal switch breaking down or you hitting something on the tracks. Since they have to be there anyway they might as well monitor the train.

Symbiote 7y ago

> What are the other trains doing? Did the next junction switch successfully? These are not things the train driver would react to. There will be a signal protecting the switch, which won't be "green" until the change is successful. If the driver tries to pass a red signal (or exceed the speed limit), the emergency brake is applied automatically. The driver needs to react to unexpected events -- which might mean applying the emergency brake on their own train and maybe pressing the emergency button to stop all trains in the area. Possibilities: - their own train has a serious mechanical failure - something falls of their train, like a container or (somehow) a passenger - the track has a serious failure (flooding, damaged rail, nearby fire) - foreign objects are on the track (cars, trees, people) Other trains will react automatically as necessary. The driver is then there to deal with the situation, which might include proceeding at slow speed, reversing, or waiting for assistance while keeping passengers informed. > some trains automatically stopping in cases of signal violation. On high-speed trains like this, all of these safety systems you've heard about are standard, and most of them are considered critical for normal operation. > what is the point of having a driver on the train? A better question is why does the driver actually drive the train? (Why do they control the speed?) I think that's to help maintain situational awareness in case there is a problem they can react to.

gnode 7y ago
I don't think any of these things are reasons to have the driver on the train. The train drivers could be located at a remote location and still be aware of these things. Loss of connectivity already means it's unsafe for the train to continue and must stop, as it cannot be aware of signals or hazards ahead. As far as foreign objects or track failures go, these are not promptly apparent from the cabin anyway. CCTV on the track and crossings ahead is better placed for early warning. Additionally, remote control of trains could potentially be more safe, as it would be easier for a new driver to take over in the event of e.g. the driver having a heart attack or stroke. I think the only remaining reason is the physical accountability of being on the train.
- _nosaj 7y ago
  > CCTV on the track and crossings ahead is better placed for early warning. That's a lot of CCTV to replace one human.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    CCTVs are cheap and have other benefits for being there.

dmitriid 7y ago

Remote control systems can and will fail.

Symbiote 7y ago
I don't know what's considered a safe speed for moving a train without working safety systems on a European high-speed railway, but it's almost certainly so slow (20-40km/h) that the system is designed such that failure of the control system is extremely rare. Should it fail, the priority will be to restore it, rather than move trains around very slowly.
- dmitriid 7y ago
  On-train systems will stop the train in case of failure. I was responding to “Why not have people in a control room drive the trains, coordinating the system as a whole”. Infrastructure and timetables are centrally coordinated (or actoss several centers). Controlling a train remotely introduces multiple points of failure: - connection lag - connection quality - remote operators don’t have the full details on a train (unless you have one operator per train) Remote/automatic control works in smaller systems (such as subways, see e.g. Copenhagen), but the speeds there are usually smaller, the “fleet” is smaller, you can reach the trains in case of failure faster etc.
gnode 7y ago
I don't see why this is an issue. If it fails, the train should stop. The train should be designed such that it only continues on its way if a continuous "okay to proceed" signal is received, gated on automatic safety systems and deliberate human action. Even if you have a driver, the train should still stop if it cannot communicate, because the driver can't determine whether the track ahead is safe.
- dmitriid 7y ago
  Railroads were developed in a time when “continuous communication” wasn’t even a fiction, much less reality. I don’t know what continuous monitoring/communication brings other than numerous new failure modes.